Vincent Carroll’s column outlining The Denver Post’s policy on publishing letters “skeptical that humans are causing climate change” is reasonable, if not responsible. Climate-change science with its innumerable, ever-changing variables lacks the precision of which most other science is capable.

That readers choose to ignore the proven and observable truth is fascinating, like a train wreck, psychologically interesting; and like any fiction, frequently creative.

Please don’t claim that the “arbiters of truth” or just “truth” ends debate, which it clearly doesn’t; just give truth its due. When the diminishing biosphere and the end of life on Earth as we know it are the subject, it is a debate unlike any other on the pages of your newspaper. It involves some journalistic responsibility. I believe the Los Angeles Times can be proud of its stance to not print, in most cases, climate-change deniers’ letters.

Barb Coddington, Glenwood Springs

This letter was published in the Oct. 27 edition.

Vincent Carroll’s column on censorship of “warming skeptics” by the Los Angeles Times was an excellent synopsis of the problem.

Wikipedia defines science as “knowledge of testable explanations and predictions.” The International Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) has not a single climate model that predicted the current 16-year hiatus of warming. The warming theory is totally based on computer models.

In addition to a hiatus in warming, we are seeing the largest ice area in the Antarctic since satellite measurements started, and the Arctic ice cap is currently increasing at a very rapid rate.

The Soviet Union suppressed scientific openness, and suffered the consequences. Let’s hope that we do not follow suit.

William Yurth, Boulder

This letter was published in the Oct. 27 edition.

Even the most lenient opinion page would be unlikely to print a letter on a medical topic from an advocate of the medieval theory of “humours,” and media outlets don’t feel obliged to allot space to arguments for such regressive or unscientific viewpoints as geocentric cosmology, a flat Earth, or the moral acceptability of slavery.

It’s in this context the the Los Angeles Times’ recent decision to reject letters denying the reality of anthropogenic global warming must be understood. While climatologists disagree about particular climate-forcing mechanisms or the relative severity of specific effects, there’s no longer any scientific argument about the human causes of climate change. Outlying views will always exist, but this is no reason to treat single dissenters as worthy of equivalent airtime or column inches — especially since, in media handling of climate issues, these contrarian opinions invariably come from the same individuals.

Warren Senders, Medford, Mass.

This letter was published in the Oct. 27 edition.

Vincent Carroll apparently believes that something accepted by 95 percent of the world’s legitimate climate scientists is not only still unsettled science, but writes that climate skeptics believe that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change “has demonstrated consistent bias in favor of alarmist interpretations.” He believes the IPCC’s findings should be balanced with the blogs of a debunked outlying climatologist, or the opinions of conservative mouthpiece Charles Krauthammer.

This speaks more to the problems of mainstream journalism than to those of the Los Angeles Times, which has decided to no longer promote climate change denial. Blind adherence to balance and presenting the “back and forth” not only provides cover to those seeking to propagate a delusional position for economic gain, but it creates the kind of false equivalencies that have resulted in a confused and muddled electorate.

The Los Angeles Times is to be commended for placing accurate reporting above pandering.

Harv Teitelbaum, Evergreen

This letter was published in the Oct. 27 edition.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow eLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

Thank you, Sen. Mark Udall, for standing up to the power base of both parties and for questioning the government’s unconscionable assault on our civil liberties. Better late than never. It is unfortunate, however, that it took the actions of a low-level NSA contractor to bring this situation to the forefront.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein and others cavalierly assert that the NSA’s surveillance of law-abiding citizens is “lawful.” Seriously? Of course it is. All you need to do is enact legislation approving tyranny and, as if by definition, tyranny becomes lawful. Add to that a “secret interpretation” of the law. Lawful? How are citizens supposed to abide by the law when it is subject to secret interpretation? It doesn’t get much more arbitrary than that.

We may have less to fear from the terrorists than the overreaching zealots who would suspend the Bill of Rights. I understand the motivations of the former; I am less sanguine about the motivations of the latter.

Richard Mignogna, Golden

This letter was published in the June 20 edition.

At a congressional hearing on March 12, Sen. Ron Wyden asked Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, “Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?”

Clapper’s response? “No sir.”

Thanks to the courageous actions of Edward Snowden, we now know Clapper lied.

If President Obama truly “welcomes a debate” on the NSA secret spy program on American citizens, he now has the opportunity to demonstrate his good faith by firing Clapper.

Christopher Dugan, Denver

This letter was published in the June 20 edition.

What should we do with Edward Snowden and his leaky likes? Punish or reward them? Perhaps it should depend on whether they can prove their allegation that the government has broken the law. Convince the jury (or the commission, or whatever) and you’ll be honored as a whistleblower; fail to do so and you go to jail as a thief.

Brad Bohland, Denver

This letter was published in the June 20 edition.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow eLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

On Tuesday, The Denver Post carried Victoria Camron’s obituary for Percy Conarroe, former editor of the Louisville Times.

The headline quote that he “lived an admirable life” is a most descriptive comment.

I have known Percy for more than 50 years, starting with the outset of his career in journalism during the 1950s. Early on, I became a fan of his incisive yet perceptive style of editorial writing, starting with his years as owner and editor of Simla’s Pike View Farmer. He had the admirable ability to distill complex issues into terms the average citizen could understand.

For those of us who were fortunate enough to have known Percy, we’re all richer for the experience.

Well done, Percy, well done.

Marvin O. Maul, Colorado Springs

This letter was published in the June 19 edition.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow eLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

Letter-writer Marlys DeVries believes that when President Obama allows for Plan B for females of all ages, he will have to answer to God regarding adultery and murder. Plan B is emergency contraception. I have no idea why she believes it is an adulterous act to use contraception, but she needs to be informed that contraception has nothing to do with abortion, which is what she was referring to as murder, I am sure.

Karen Hill, Denver

This letter was published in the June 19 edition.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow eLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

Denver’s most obvious retail opportunity exists downtown with the growing employee and residential base. These demographics are tremendous for all types of retail concepts. Shopping malls would kill for such a captive audience.

But does Denver’s economic development office, the Downtown Denver Partnership, or the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce have a professional who spends their entire time promoting these tremendous demographics in downtown to every retail concept in the universe of retailers? Unfortunately, the answer is no.

If a professional working downtown who lives in the suburbs could find a yoga outfit or a gift for a kid’s birthday party while on their lunch break, would they really want to drive to a suburban mall after work for these retail purchases?

Bill Lysaught, Denver

The writer is former manager of Denver’s Economic Development Office.

This letter was published in the June 19 edition.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow eLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

I think the argument that Robyn Thomas and Juliet Leftwich attempted to make in their Saturday column is misleading.

They boast “gains” of 231 percent in the introduction of gun-control legislation in the nation, and they specifically mention 11 states — six of which already had Draconian anti-gun laws on their books. One question: Why pass new laws rather than stringently enforce current laws? If anybody thinks new laws will stop criminals from gun violence, there are plenty of examples of the failure of laws to stop criminals.

A recent study showed that the U.S. is fourth from the top in the world in gun-related murders. The same study shows that if the statistics of Chicago, Detroit, Washington, D.C., and New Orleans — all cities on the Draconian anti-gun list — were removed from the national totals, the U.S. would rank fourth from the bottom.

What does that tell the logical thinker?

Richard D. VanOrsdale, Broomfield

This letter was published in the June 19 edition.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow eLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

There is often one common denominator in the young men and women who perpetuate the violence that takes innocent lives. Many of our youth reflect an absence of caring adults guiding them to navigate life. Young people abandoned by adults struggle to make good decisions. Violence and gangs are logical when adults fail to join the lives of their young. Parents who emotionally invest in their young produce positive and constructive communities. Ask abandoned youth and they will tell of their desire to fill their lives with caring adults.

Let’s not fool ourselves; youth violence is a parenting issue. Too many adults are wrongly convinced that a child doesn’t need two parents. It is a perilous endeavor to walk life without parents or caring adults. We have abandoned our children and then we expect them to act like wise adults. Why have we permitted ourselves to embrace this value?

Luis Villarreal, Denver

The writer is executive director of Save Our Youth Mentoring.

This letter was published in the July 5 edition.

The most honorable tribute we could and should make in honoring Denver police officer Celena Hollis is to make illegal the carrying of handguns and assault rifles in our state and nation. The sole purpose of these are to kill — nothing else. Let’s get on this immediately. Hunting rifles permitted if the NRA insists.

Dee Bauer-DeVries, Littleton

This letter was published in the July 5 edition.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow DPLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

Guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 150 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address, day and evening phone numbers, and may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.

To reach the Denver Post editorial page by phone: 303-954-1331

Recent Comments

peterpi: I think I have this correct: Voters in Jefferson County elected school board members that the superintendent...

peterpi: Sounds good to me. For future employees. I believe police and fire dept. brass have also been known to get...